SLAVER'i—A PUBLIC ENEMY, AND OUGHT THEREFORE TO BE DE¬ 
STROYED; A NUISANCE THAT MUST BE ABATED. 



SPEECH 


OP 


/ 


HON. W. P. CUTLER, 


OF OHIO, 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


April 23, 1862. 








— .. f 


-v 


WASHINGTON, D. GU 

SCAMMELL A CO., HUNTERS, COR. OF SECOND A INDIANA AVENUE, THIRD FLOOR. 

1862. 















" 4 



/ *9 /f 7 / 

t, ’■ '■ ' . • ' ti. I -JO F-, . , >' v - 

C 


. 3 '.) a ,uai 





SPEECH 


' ‘ ' 1 

v 

_ Mr. CUTLER said: 

4 — ^Mr. Chairman: Iu the preamble of the bill 
v!' under consideration I find the following weighty 
< '•■and startling words: 

' “ Slavery has caused the present rebellion in the United 

' States, and there can be no solid and permanent peace and 
union in this Republic so long as that institution exists.” 

Sir, I believe these words are true. This con¬ 
viction imposes upon me the duty not only of 
urging the President to use his power as pro¬ 
vided in the bill, but opens the whole field of 
inquiry as to what policy is demanded to secure 
“solid and permanent peace and union.” I 
shall therefore address myself directly to the 
inquiry whether, under the Constitution, Con¬ 
gress has any right to interfere with the system 
of slavery in the States. 

I approach the subject with some reluctance, 
because I have, up to the breaking out of this 
rebellion, held that slavery was a local affair, 
and that Congress, having no rights over it, had 
no duties to perform in the premises. But I- 
have always claimed that if the guardians of 
that institution, in their folly and madness, ever 
did succeed in giving it nationality, so that I 
should be held responsible in any way for its 
future existence, it should have no mercy at 
my hands. 

I am also compelled to approach this ques¬ 
tion and look at it from the quiet stand-point 
of a plain business man, making no pretensions 
to political sagacity, having a thorough dislike 
for all political strategy, and no taste whatever 
for the mere agitation of any question. But I 
find a deep, strong, and rapidly increasing 
under-current of thought and feeling among 
quiet, intelligent people, running in the direc¬ 
tion of a final and complete solution of this 
question of slavery. 

This inquiry has produced some agitation, 
and may produce more. I have not in times 
passed furnished, nor do I expect in future to 
furnish, much contribution to such agitation ; 
but I must say that of one thing I have as 
thorough a contempt as is consistent with that 
courtesy I desire at all times to extend to those 
who differ with me in opinion. I allude to that 


kind of political management which seeks to 
control or suppress agitation upon this subject 
by dint of hard names, scornful epithets, and 
blustering threats. 

I remember once to have read of an eastern 
monarch marching at the head of the most nu¬ 
merous army ever mustered, who was exceed¬ 
ingly annoyed by the boisterous agitation of the 
waves of the sea, which threatened to interrupt 
his progress and defeat his plans. He resorted 
to a pronunciamiento, and undertook to lecture 
the sea into obedience. Now, in my humble 
judgmeut, Xerxes made a great ass of himself, 
and lost some money, when he undertook to 
chain down the sea. There are people to-day 
who are attempting as foolish a task, and will 
some time or other be crowned with the same 
honors. You might as well read the riot act 
to a West India hurricane as to attempt to 
scold the people of this country into silence on 
any subject. 

This agitation, sir, will never stop until this 
whole question of slavery is settled in accord¬ 
ance with the judgment and conscience of an 
intelligent Christian nation. The short logic 
now running through the minds of many peo¬ 
ple is this: slavery is the cause of this war; 
therefore slavery must be destroyed. 

It is quite evident that the mind of the Pres¬ 
ident—with the simplicity, earnestness, and 
honesty which characterize the man—is run¬ 
ning in the same deep and thorough channel. 
In his recent message, he makes the “ abolish¬ 
ment of slavery” a question of “ self-preserva¬ 
tion,” and as such commends it to Congress. 
As a faithful guardian of the national life, he 
has uttered a warning voice which it would be 
unwise, if not criminal, to disregard. While he 
has shown a proper deference to those interested, 
and sought their co-operation in any practical 
measure, it cannot be supposed that he intends 
that a question of self-preservation shall ever 
pass out of the hands of the sovereignty whose 
life is endangered ; for to admit that each State, 
acting as States, can control and finally deter¬ 
mine a question of life and death for the whole 
nation, is simply absurd. 






4 


The question then is upon us, and while my 
own views are quite decided, and have been 
formed outside of the arena of prevailing agita¬ 
tion, I shall present them with great diffidence, 
and in the spirit of earnest inquiry as to what 
is^ the right way, disclaiming all right or inten¬ 
tion of speaking for anybody but myself. I 
shall indulge in an independent utterance upon 
the “ vexed question,” having a proper regard 
for differences of opinion and a proper disre¬ 
gard for personal consequences. 

It cannot be denied that this general dread 
and real abhorrence of slavery prevailing in the 
minds of right-minded people is accompanied 
with the feeling that nothing can be done to 
secure its final overthrow without violating the 
Constitution of the United States. I recognise 
this wide-spread, universal regard for the Con¬ 
stitution as one of the grand safe-guards of na¬ 
tional existence, and not to be lightly esteemed 
by those who give direction to public opinion. 

The inquiry, therefore, meets us at the thresh- 
hold of the discussion: does the Constitution, 
by a fair construction of its powers, authorize 
or permit such interference by Congress with 
slavery as will lead to its ultimate extinction ? 

It is not simply in its property aspects that 
slavery is urged upon our most serious consid¬ 
eration. The relation which that system bears 
to our democratic institutions of government, 
the effect which its existence has had and its 
continuance will have upon their perpetuity, 
the antagonisms which naturally and necessa¬ 
rily flow from that source, and, above all, the 
intimate and direct connection between that 
system and the present rebellion, furnish topics 
of serious inquiry, and give rise to the ques¬ 
tion, still more serious, whether the Constitution 
itself is competent to grapple with impending 
dangers from this source and supply an efficient 
remedy. 

The inquiry, of course, must lead to an in¬ 
vestigation of the real merits of the system of 
slavery, a careful consideration of its power 
and tendencies for mischief, and involves the 
right and duty of Congress in the premises. 

Without promising to pursue anything like 
logical accuracy in the discussion, I offer the 
following propositions as a basis, and will at¬ 
tempt to prove them sound : 

1. It is the right and duty of Congress to 
destroy every enemy that threatens the national 
ife. 

2. Slavery is such an enemy. Therefore it 
is the right and duty of Congress to destroy 
slavery. 

It will be conceded that our fathers, by the 
formation of the Constitution, succeeded in 
creating an absolute sovereignty for all pur¬ 
poses expressed in the instrument itself. These 
purposes are clearly set forth in the preamble 
in the following language : 

“ We, tho people of the United States, in order to form a 
more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tran¬ 
quillity, provide for the common defence, promote the gen¬ 


eral welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves 
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution 
for the United States of America.” 

Now, whatever other objects, purposes, or 
aims the people may have had, it is absolutely 
certain that unity, justice, domestic tranquillity, 
defence, general welfare, and liberty were intend¬ 
ed to be secured to themselves and posterity, 
by ordaining and establishing the Constitution. 
These objects became the law of the new being 
thus created. It lives to secure them. A blow 
aimed at any or all of them is a blow aimed at 
its own life. As a sovereignty created for these 
objects, it has a right to live. 

This right to exist involves the right to destroy 
enemies. If it has a right to destroy enemies, 
there must be a corresponding right to discrim¬ 
inate and determine who and what are or are 
not enemies. If this right of discrimination 
and determination exists, it will hardly be de¬ 
nied that Congress, acting in its co-ordinate 
capacity, is the proper organ of the Govern¬ 
ment to exercise this function. 

I do not go to the preamble in search of a 
distinct grant of power. I go there to ascer¬ 
tain the purposes for which the Constitution 
was formed. I assume that the Government 
established by that instrument is absolutely 
sovereign to carry out and secure these pur¬ 
poses. To deny to a sovereignty thu3 formed the 
power necessary to carry out and secure the 
purposes of its own creation, really involves the 
absurdity of denying that it is a sovereignty at 
all. I need not point out specific clauses, be¬ 
cause self-preservation, or, in other words, the 
carrying out and securing the purposes of its 
own creation, is the aim, end, substance, and 
fulfilling of the whole instrument. 

No one, surely, can deny that the causes of 
the present most wicked and outrageous rebel¬ 
lion, which, thus far, has succeeded in destroy¬ 
ing the “unity” and “tranquillity” of the na¬ 
tion, are proper subjects of inquiry and deter¬ 
mination ; and if, upon such inquiry, it shall be 
found that slavery is its author—or if its iden¬ 
tification with this rebellion is such as to demon¬ 
strate its utter antagonism with the purposes 
for which the Constitution was formed—then it 
is not only the right but the duty of Congress 
to take such measures as it may deem proper 
for its destruction as a public enemy. The 
safety of the people is the supreme law, to 
which every interest, every institution, every 
man’s life, even, must yield obedience. 

But I am met at this point with the objec¬ 
tion that slavery is guarantied by the Constitu¬ 
tion—that the web of its existence, by some 
mysterious process, is so interwoven with the 
warp and woof of that instrument, that to touch 
slavery you destroy the Constitution. 

It is far from my purpose to enter into a nice 
discussion of constitutional law, but rather to 
state facts and to pursue those inferences which 
seem palpable and open to the most slender 
comprehension. It is a fact that nearly all the 





controversies which have hitherto prevailed on 
the subject related to the extension of the sys 
tern or to the return of fugitive slaves. These 
controversies are inapplicable to a proposition 
• to destroy the system, upon the ground that it 
is a public enemy. Granting that the Consti¬ 
tution did guaranty the return of fugitive 
slaves, it does not follow that it undertook to 
keep up a supply of fugitives. But v/e may un¬ 
derstand the subject better by inquiring into 
the facts of the existence of the system in this 
country, and may thus see whether the Consti¬ 
tution is in any way responsible for it. That 
slavery in this country had its origin in the 
forcible abduction of its victims from a foreign 
country, and that their bondage ensued as a 
usual status of captives taken in war, is true, 
but that the persons now held in slavery are 
captives taken in war will not be claimed. The 
status of those now held in slavery is determined 
by applying to each individual an old heathen 
maxim, “ partus sequitur venlrem ,” “ the child 
follows the condition of the mother.” From 
whence is that maxim derived? From a na¬ 
tion whom God in His wrath has tried, con¬ 
demned, executed, aud buried out of sight, 
mainly because it persistently applied that 
maxim to creatures born in His image, thus 
perpetuating a system which dishonored Him, 
and more than anything else wrought out its 
own national ruin. 

Now, this great nation, leading the van of 
Christian and democratic progress, digs out of 
the fire and brimstone of Roman perdition this 
maxim, makes it the very basis and foundation 
of a system which dooms to slavery the labor¬ 
ers of half a continent, and then coolly throws 
the responsibility of the abhorrent deed upon 
the Constitution of the United States. Now, 
let us see how the case stands. The Constitu¬ 
tion says, no person shall be “deprived of lib¬ 
erty without due process of law.” This heath¬ 
en maxim deprives a whole race of liberty, and 
assigns as the only reason, not that they are 
black, not that they are captives, but that the 
mother was a slave. Here is a direct, positive, 
fatal conflict with the Constitution. 

It may be claimed that this maxim has been 
recognised by judicial and legislative action, 
and has become the local common law of the 
slave States. Grant that it is so. This as¬ 
sumption relieves the Constitution of any pa¬ 
ternity of the system, and to this extent, surely, 
there is no guarantee. No local or common 
law can repeal or abrogate the Bill of Rights. 
More than this, the heathen maxim —partus se¬ 
quitur ventrem —woiks a corruption of blood. 
Now, if there is any one of the old feudal prin¬ 
ciples of despotism more thoroughly condemn¬ 
ed and abhorred than another, this idea of cor¬ 
ruption of blood is that one. It was not only 
buried by commbn consent of the Anglo-Saxon 
race, long before the formation of the Constitu¬ 
tion, but the possibility of its resurrection was 
forever precluded in that instrument; and yet 


it is the very life, indeed the only blood the 
system of slavery has in it. 

So far is it from being true that slavery 
is based upon the Constitution, it may be stated 
as a general proposition, that neither the or¬ 
ganic or statutory laws of the slave States 
themselves undertake to create the relation of 
master and slave, but treat it as an existing 
fact. The constitution of Kentucky, adopted 
in 1850, however, was probably intended to 
form an exception to this rule. It is there 
provided, (article 13, section 3:) 

“That tho right of property is before and higher than 
any constitutional sanction ; that the right of the owner of 
a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as 
inviolable as the right of tho owner of any property what¬ 
ever.” 

There we have the higher law of slavery, 
something above constitutional sanction. The 
same provision found its way into that grace¬ 
less political reprobate called the Lecompton 
constitution. This is not so much an effort to 
create the institution, as it is an attempt to 
perpetuate a relation already existing, and to 
withdraw it from the reach of legislative and 
judicial interference. It is a concise embodi¬ 
ment of the results of the system and an en¬ 
dorsement thereof by the organic law. This 
culmination of the slave theory, as stated in 
the Kentucky constitution, did not satisfy its 
friends, and hence the demaud for what was 
intended to be a complete panacea for all its 
ills—the Dred Scott decision. I have thus 
briefly stated the facts relating to the vitality 
of slavery, and described the thing which is 
claimed to be guarantied by the Constitution. 

Now, when I am daily met with the demand, 
most vigorously and earnestly, and with appa¬ 
rent sincerity made, that I shall live up to and 
respect the guarantees of the Constitution in 
regard to slavery, I think I have a right to de¬ 
mand, where are those guarantees written in 
the instrument itself ? Ido not want outside 
understandings or conversations to be substi¬ 
tuted for the text; but where is it nominated 
in the bond that the sovereignty created by the 
Constitution shall enforce that decree of hell 
by which, with the brevity and point of a thun¬ 
derbolt, the child born in the image of God is 
severed from the womb and consigned to the 
stall of the brute ? Give me the text of the 
organic law of this great nation, which sanc¬ 
tions or enforces the robbery of cradles to sup¬ 
ply sinews for a toil creative of luxury for an 
oligarchy. Where are we bidden to enforce a 
theory and to protect an interest which declares 
itself to be above all constitutional sanction ? 

I claim that the Constitution gives no guar¬ 
antee whatever for the existence of slavery, but 
that it lives solely by its own local law, and 
that local law i3 in palpable violation of the • 
Constitution. 

But I go further, and say that if the life of 
the institution had been guarantied by the 
Constitution, if it hid drawn, its life-blood from 
that source, if it becomes a public enemy, its 




6 


right to live is forfeited. I say this, because 
the condition of life for every being is, that it 
shall not use its powers to strike down the life 
of its creator. If it does, then its own life is 
forfeited. And I venture to assert, as an his¬ 
torical fact, that no proper judicial tribunal has 
ever considered and decided the question, 
whether, under and by virtue of the Constitu¬ 
tion, a child born of a slave mother can in con¬ 
sequence be held to service for life ; but, on the 
contrary, the courts have treated the relation 
of master and slave as an existing status, with¬ 
out having inquired into its rightfulness. 

It is theretore at least an open question, 
whether there can be such a relation under the 
Constitution, or rather, whether the Constitu¬ 
tion does not sweep away every local law that 
is in direct conflict with its own provisions. 
And it was to avoid this very question that 
slaveholding Senators resisted a trial by jury of 
fugitive slaves. Mr. Mason, of Virginia, on the 
19th of August, 1850, in the Senate, said: 

“ Then again it is proposed, as part of the proof to be ad¬ 
duced at the hearing after the fugitive has been recaptured, 
that evidence shall b ■ brought by the claimant to show that 
slavery is established in the State from which the fugitive 
absconded. Now this very thing, in a recent case iu the 
city of New York, was required by one of the judges of that 
State, which case attracted the attention of the authorities 
of Maryland, and against which they protested, because of 
the indignities heaped on their citizens and the losses sus¬ 
tained in that city. In that case the judge of the State court 
required proof that slavery was established iu Maryland, 
and went so far as to say that the only mode of proving it 
was by reference to the statute-book. Such proof is required 
in the Senator’s amendment; and if he means by this that 
proof shall be brought that slavery is established by exist¬ 
ing laws, it is impossible to comply with the requisition, for 
no such proof can be produced, 1 apprehend, in auy ol the 
slave States. I am not aware that there is a single State in 
which the institution is established by positive law.” 

We are thus brought to the consideration of 
the minor proposition that slavery is a public 
enemy. It is evident that the main controversy 
must turn upon the truth of this proposition, 
for if its enmity were quite apparent, if it stood 
in the same attitude of hostility as the southern 
confederacy now stands, the unanimous voice 
of the people, which now demands the uncon- 
di ional downfall of that combination, would 
demand in like manner the extinction of slavery. 
It is my object to show that it is thus hostile, 
and that this rebellion is simply slavery in arms 
against the Constitution. 

Let us for a moment look at its past foot¬ 
prints upon this continent, and inquire into its 
true origin, aims, and results. More than two 
hundred years ago a vessel landed upon the 
shores of this wilderness continent, freighted 
with au idea. True, there was material prop¬ 
erty and men on board that vessel, but they 
have all perished with the rubbish of the past. 
But the idea came for conquest and dominion, 
and it Still lives. That idea had long held 
sway over Europe and determined the fate of 
its people. The idea was simply that the few 
had a right to control the many, and to appro¬ 
priate for their own benefit the fruits of the la¬ 
borer’s toil. Then it was called feudalism ; its 
victims, villeins ; its home was in the mountain 


crags; its business, war; its wealth, spoils; its 
pleasant places, the desolations of industry; 
its law, the will of a chieftain ; its prey, the 
people; its history, the dark ages of Europe. 

The organization of regular governments 
under monarchies dislodged feudalism from 
its mountain fastnesses and strongholds, and 
compromised with its leaders by offers of po¬ 
sition at court; but the idea itself was never 
dislodged from the heart of the gentry of Eu¬ 
rope. Driven from its first possessions, it 
sought other devils, more malignant than itself, 
and started its fortunes in the newly swept and 
garnished continent of America. I need not 
trace the development of the feudal or despotic 
idea into the full grown system of slavery as 
it now exists. In its new form it is seven times 
worse than before. It was despotism then ; it 
is despotism now. In Europe, it succumbed 
and gradually vanished before the pale starlight 
of the monarchies. But while Heaven and 
earth rejoiced over its downfall there, it cun¬ 
ningly steals half a' continent here, and bids 
defiance to God and man, under the Constitu¬ 
tion of the United States. But the day of its 
judgment has come. The cry of the poor has 
reached the ear of their Almighty friend, and 
that system, which has hitherto-eluded retribu¬ 
tion, must stand the scrutiny of mankind, and 
be judged by its deeds. 

Let us examine some of the direct antagon¬ 
isms between the system and the objects for 
which the Constitution was formed. As an 
illustration how entirely it defeats the first ob¬ 
ject named—that is, “justice”—I neednotspend 
time in arguing that slavery is contrary to na¬ 
tural justice. That point is so universally con¬ 
ceded that it may be assumed as an axiom. 
The authors of the Constitution decided that 
“justice” should be one of the objects to be 
cared for and promoted by that instrument. 
As it is not limited iu terms to any particular 
class of persons, it is fair to presume that it was 
intended to reach all who are to be affected by 
the administration of justice. 

It is not necessary for the purpose of my ar¬ 
gument to extend the inquiry as to how far 
every inhabitant of a country may demand 
justice at the hands of a sovereignty formed by 
the people for the avowed purpose of establish¬ 
ing justice, or to throw upon the General Gov¬ 
ernment responsibilities in this regard which 
belong to State governments. But I do desire 
to enter a modest but firm protest against the 
popular view of this question taken by all par¬ 
ties, which contemptuously and scornfully ig¬ 
nores all right of the slave to justice in his per¬ 
sonal relations, and without desiring to take a 
hyper-religious view of the subject, or press 
Christian ethics improperly into the controversy, 
I do claim that, when God in His providence 
locates beings formed in His own image 
within the territorial limits of a sovereignty, 
professedly based upon justice, there is an ob¬ 
ligation somewhere to give heed to His claims 



7 


in this regard. He has pledged the honor and 
strength of His government in behalf of the op¬ 
pressed. Hence it is that “ whoever oppresseth 
the poor reproacheth his Maker.” And I ven¬ 
ture to say that the Almighty has this day a 
controversy with this nation because the rights 
of the poor have been persistently ignored and 
natural justice denied to them. Now, we may 
say that a denial of justice to the slave can 
work no harm to us, because the slave is too 
weak to vindicate his rights. But the consti¬ 
tutional guardians of a nation’s sovereignty 
cannot afford to enter the lists against such an 
adversary as we do encounter when we oppress 
the poor and vex the needy. It may seem easy 
to stop the mouth of the dumb and turn away 
the poor and friendless from his right, but their 
Redeemer is mighty, and no wise counsellor ot 
the nation’s safety will attempt to thwart His 
purposes or refuse to co-operate in His plans 
when He rises in the majesty of His power to 
vindicate the rights of the poor. 

If it shall appear that thp power of the 
sovereignty can be rightfully exercised, directly 
to carry out the objects'of its being, or if this 
system of crying injustice has made itself ob¬ 
noxious to interference by this and other delin¬ 
quencies, and in consequence of outrages upon 
the nation’s life and welfare—permitted by 
Providence, perhaps, for this very end—there, 
I say, our responsibility begins. Let us give 
a moment’s heed to His warnings; see what 
estimate He places upon the rights of the poor, 
and the pledges he has given to vindicate their 
cause: 

“ Bob not the poor because ho is poor ; neither oppress 
the afflicted in the gate ; lor the Lord will plead their cause 
and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them.”— Proverbs, 
xxb, 22,23. 

“ Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteous¬ 
ness and his chambers by wrong ; that useth his neighbor’s 
service without wages,and giveth hint not for his work.”— 
Jeremiah, xxii, 12. 

“ There lore, thus saith the Lord : ye have not hearkened 
unto me, iu proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, 
and every man to his neighbor ; behold ! I will proclaim a 
liberty lor you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pesti¬ 
lence, and to tffle famine.”— Jeremiah, xxxiv, 17. 

“ He shall judge the poor of the people. He shall- save 
the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the op¬ 
pressor.”— Psalm Ixxii, 4. 

“ For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the 
needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord. I will set him in 
safety from him that pufleth at him.”— Psalm xii, 5. 

Now, if the existence of this huge injustice in 
the land has aroused the wrath of the Al¬ 
mighty, and if this injustice is in direct contra¬ 
vention of the fundamental purpose of a Gov 
ernment ordained by His providence, then 
surely an obligation rests upon us to put away 
the iniquity, and there is no safety to the na¬ 
tion without it. 

But there are other antagonisms operating 
directly against every one of the declared pur¬ 
poses of the Constitution. 

The great struggles and controversies of the 
human race have proceeded from the varied 
an i unceasing attempts of the powerful, the 
w al hy, and more intelligent, to overreach, 
harass, and oppress the weak. God, in His 


mercy, took pity upon them, and instituted re¬ 
publican governments as the only sure refuge of 
the people. This safety consists, not in the de¬ 
struction of power or wealth or intelligence, 
but in placing such checks upon their use that 
the people are safe. The man of wealth, in a 
republic, may desire to oppress the poor, but 
he finds the court-house door as open to his in¬ 
tended victim as to himself. He may desire to 
oppress the hireling iu his wages, but ordina¬ 
rily the hireling can leave the employment of 
a hard master and seek a better one. 

In the system of slavery these checks are all 
removed ; capital has complete, unquestioned 
control, not only over labor, but over tbe la¬ 
borer. Iu other cases, the greedy hand of pow¬ 
er stands ready to snatch the hard-earned pro¬ 
ducts of toil from the rightful possessor; but 
this system lajs its iron grasp upon the laborer 
himself, deprives him of manhood, and drives 
him out among the beasts of the field. All this 
is in direct and fatal antagonism with the fun¬ 
damental designs and purposes of this republi¬ 
can Government. The President recognises 
fully the importance of this question in that 
part of his annual message where he speaks of 
“ the effort to place capital on an equal footing 
with, if not above, labor, in the structure of 
government,” and warns the people to beware 
of this attempt to “fix new disabilities and 
burdens upon them until all of liberty is lost.” 

But it is claimed that these ill effects of the 
system are confined to an inferior race, and that 
the great mass of white laborers are not 
affected. Let me say in reply that human so¬ 
ciety has not been organized with any such 
loose joints as this. The effects of a long 
continued degradation of laborers cannot, in 
the nature of things, be confined to its immedi¬ 
ate victims. The masses are laborers ; but the 
masses are also the sovereigns. A systematic 
degradation of laborers, even though they have 
no participation in the duties of sovereigns, 
works a sure and fatal loss of proper considera¬ 
tion and respect for all who live by labor. If 
the real sovereigns of any Dation are brought 
into disrespect and contempt, then the power of 
that nation is weakened and its existence en¬ 
dangered. Now slavery has accomplished this 
to a most fearful extent; not only at home, in 
your capital, in your commercial centres; not 
only does this estimate of vulgarity and inferi¬ 
ority rest upon the laboring sovereigns of this 
country in the walks of social position, so far 
as slavery has given tone to social life among 
us, but Europe is taught, by the masters of 
the same school, to believe that Americans are 
a rabble. The governing classes abroad despise 
you, because you have permitted yourselves to 
be despised and insulted at home ; and to-day, 
when a continent trembles beneath the tread of 
six hundred thousand homestead kings, battling 
for the right to govern and control their own 
property, they are met with contempt and scorn 
from an aristocracy abroad sympathising with 



the efforts of an aristocracy at home to throttle 
popular government in its cradle and drive hu¬ 
manity into bankruptcy. When the dignity of 
human nature has been committed to your care, 
and you have accepted the trust, you cannot 
permit it to be trampled upon with impunity 
without losing your own position among the 
nations. 

Thus is this system in direct antagonism with 
the very foundations of national existence—that 
is, national honor. 

But the influence of the system is not alone 
confined to its universal degradation of labor, 
and consequently of the laboring sovereigns of 
this country, in the estimation of the civilized 
world. The men who exercise unlimited and 
irresponsible power over so large a portion of 
their fellow-men who constitute the laboring 
force of their own section, are thereby unfitted 
to unite with the laborers of another section of 
a common country in sustaining a republican 
government. 

By this broad assertion, I do not intend to de¬ 
tract from thecharacter ofslaveholders any of the 
fine qualities claimed for them, or bring against 
them charges of undue cruelty, or to deny that 
under some forms of government they might 
get along with their system successfully ; but 
the point I make is: that while they regard and 
treat the laborers of their own section as chat¬ 
tels—deem man to be merchandise—they will 
not co-operate with the laborers who are the 
sovereigns of another section of the common 
country, upon those terms of equality, forbear- 
ace, and courtesy, which are absolutely indis¬ 
pensable to the successful administration of the 
affairs of a republic; I mean that a republic 
cannot live while this enemy to domestic tran¬ 
quillity and national honor holds sway. 

I stand here as a laborer, from my youth up. 
I represent a constituency of laborers. I pre¬ 
sume it is no discourtesy to say that every 
member on this floor from the free States, rep¬ 
resents such a constituency. The ballots that 
sent us here were placed in the box by fingers 
hardened by toil; and we cannot if we would, 
and would not, I trust, if we could, shirk any 
of the reproaches or responsibilities attached 
to the condition of laborers. But we are met 
here by those who, from the moment their infant 
feet could wander from a mother’s care, all the 
way up through youth and manhood, have been 
trained to regard a laborer as an inferior being ; 
have bought him and'sold him and scourged 
him ; have, by the inexorable necessities of the 
system, denied him earnings, family, wife, chil¬ 
dren, everything that men desire to live for, 
and have blotted out from his sight God’s re¬ 
vealed pathway to a better world. 

Now, is it to be wondered at that scholars 
from such a school should give evidence of 
proficiency in their training when they are 
brought into direct contact with laborers in 
legislative halls? Is it matter of surprise 
that time-honored settlements and compromises 


of vexed questions should be trampled upon, 
treated with contempt, and all the vials of invec¬ 
tive wrath poured upon the freemen who dared 
to complain or resist? Is it matter of surprise 
that the overseer’s lash should be transferred 
from the plantation to the Halls of Congress ; 
bluster and threats should form the staple of 
logic, and pistols, knives, and clubs the conclu¬ 
sions of argument; that executive opportunity 
should furnish to rebellion all its material to 
destroy the life of the nation and lay waste its 
territory? Is it a matter of wonder that, like 
the frogs and vermin of Egypt, this system 
should crawl up and take possession of the pal¬ 
aces, tables, and bedchambers of this capital ? 
that in the day of the nation’s peril the Pharaoh 
then in power should despise and neglect the 
opportunities of a nation’s salvation, and with 
hardened heart and blind imbecility invite the 
Almighty’s wrath ? 

These things are all the legitimate fruits of 
slavery. Every tree shall be judged by its 
fruit; and to this judgment the people.of this 
country are now bringing this system. They 
have a right to pass judgment upon it, or any¬ 
thing else that so intimately concerns their 
safety and welfare ; and I will venture to say 
that no opinion or sentiment is more rapidly 
forming in the minds of quiet, thinking, intelli¬ 
gent people than this—that the practical results 
of this system tend necessarily to fatal divisions 
and rebellions in our republican Government, 
and that it is consequently a dangerous foe to 
public tranquillity and safety. 

But I also propose to show that in its neigh¬ 
borhood relations it is an intolerable nuisance, 
and ought, therefore, to be abated. The system 
operates directly between master and slave, and 
if its effects were confined solely to them its 
neighborhood relations could have no place in 
the discussion. But this is not the case. There 
are two classes of persons upon whom it ope¬ 
rates, who have rights under the Constitution, 
and who have at least as strong a claim for 
protection in those rights as slaveholders. 

I refer to non-slaveholders residing in the 
slave States, and to other citizens temporarily 
sojourning in those States. When slavery first 
appeared in our paradise, it came sneaking in 
like Satan on a primitive enterprise, who “ sat, 
squat like a toad by the ear of Eve,” and be¬ 
guiled her into transgression. Then it had 
no argument or reasons, no law or constitu¬ 
tion, and had no religion ; it only asked for a 
night’s lodging ; would sleep in a shed, and 
work faithfully and quietly in the field. But 
now, in the plenitude of its power, it turns 
round and pre-empts the whole country by vir¬ 
tue of a night’s hospitality. It is full of argu¬ 
ments and reasons, a member of the church in 
good and regular standing, and has absorbed 
about all the law and constitution there is in 
the land. Now it finds that a favorable public 
opinion is necessary to its own existence. The 
institution cannot prosper unless it is popular,. 







9 


and, like a grist-mill or tavern, it must have the 
“good will” of neighbors. After it has deprived 
the mass of its immediate neighbors of all 
means of education, the task of controlling pub¬ 
lic opinion was not hopeless. Indeed, a few 
catch-words and phrases, appeals to prejudices, 
were sufficient; but this has not always an¬ 
swered. It was found that men would think 
and talk and print things not favorable to the 
system. 

Assigning as a reason that sentiments, openly 
avowed, hostile to the system, would encourage 
revolt among the slaves, thus acknowledging 
that the inexorable necessities of the system 
required it, its guardians have actually suc¬ 
ceeded in establishing a despotism over their 
entire territory more rigid and cruel and fraught 
with more national disgrace than anything that 
has cursed Europe for the last century. There 
is no freedom, and has been no freedom of opin¬ 
ion for years in the slave States, even among 
the free white men. A rigid censorship has 
been exercised, and a cruel inquisition made 
as to the sentiments of every man on this sub¬ 
ject. No man dare speak or write sentiments 
hostile to the institution. And this has been 
avowedly a slavery necessity. I will not take 
time to go into detail on this subject. Volumes 
might be penned illustrating the stubborn fact 
which I have stated—that there is, and has 
been, no freedom of opinion, but that the night 
of despotism had, before the rebellion broke 
out, settled down all over the land at the bid¬ 
ding of slavery. And I stand here to denounce 
with unmeasured indignation such a nuisance 
as absolutely intolerable. 

If the miserable slave, toiling in his bondage, 
has no right to appeal to the nation’s sover¬ 
eignty, if judicial decisions have denied them 
all right of a hearing, so that they are driven 
to God alone, surely the burning infamy of such 
a despotism, exercised upon bone of our bone 
and flesh of our flesh, men who are white enough 
to have rights, might startle the gnardians of a 
nation’s honor, and lead to the inquiry of abate¬ 
ment. 

But slavery has other neighbors. The free¬ 
men of the North desire occasionally to prose¬ 
cute lawful pursuits, or find recreation and 
pleasure in travelling through the boundaries of 
States where the Constitution is presumed to 
be protection and defence. But long before 
this rebellion broke out such visits were abso¬ 
lutely forbidden, except upon terms involving 
the personal degradation of Northern men. No 
such visitor was allowed to discuss openly the 
fundamental dogma of the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence. If he crossed the slave line he must 
leave behind him his manhood, his conscience, 
his freedom of thought and speech, and submit 
to an inquisition as hateful as ever cursed the 
despotisms of Europe. Now, why this insult 
upon neighbors ? Simply because slavery de¬ 
manded it; because the guardians of that insti¬ 
tution said it could not live unless these de¬ 


grading restrictions were enforced. It was not 
because slaveholders were the worst of men, 
but because the worst of systems required it; 
and I do not recall this as a personal matter 
with slaveholders, but to show what they regard 
as necessary for the existence and prosperity 
of their institution. 

What is to be done with freemen’s rights in 
this regard when reconstruction comes ? Do 
you say they will abandon such naughty ways 
hereafter? The blistered limb might as well 
trust a second time the burning heap of coals. 
No, sir, if the life of the institution has been 
hitherto dependent upon such neighborhood an¬ 
noyances, it will be none the less so in future. 
Do you intend to give up by reconstruction 
the right to visit the sepulchres of your honor¬ 
ed dead, whose bones rest under the surface of 
a soil redeemed from rebellion by their blood ? 
Or do you intend to confine such pilgrimages 
to those only who can procure a pass from the 
chairman of some central committee, who can 
certify that the holder hereof is “ right on the 
goose ?” Do you ask the rightful sovereigns 
of this country ever again to submit to the in¬ 
sults and outrages of former days ? If you do, 
I think you are mistaken in the temper and de¬ 
termination of the people. There is no remedy 
for such outrages except by removing their 
cause. And, I say, if State rights and State 
institutions are hereafter to inflict such outra¬ 
ges and insults, I would grind them into pow¬ 
der finer than Moses made from the idolatrous 
calf of the Israelites. I will never consent to 
leave to posterity to fight this quarrel over 
again whenever it suits the personal ambition 
of an oligarchy to conspire against a nation’s 
tranquillity. If no indemnity can be had for 
the past, security must be made doubly sure 
for the future. 

I have thus passed under review, very briefly 
and hastily, some of the points of conflict be¬ 
tween the system of slavery and the Constitu¬ 
tion, and have endeavored to point out its irre¬ 
concilable antagonism and deadly hostilities to 
a republican government. I have purposely 
avoided as much as possible the commercial 
and personal aspects of the subject. The in¬ 
quiry which I have started is, whether it is an 
enemy to the nation’s sovereignty, and whether 
its hostility is of that marked and determined 
character that that supreme law, “ the safety of 
the people,” requires its annihilation. If I have 
no right under the Constitution to prosecute this 
inquiry; if I have no right, acting here as an 
humble unit among the guardians of the na¬ 
tion's sovereignty, to determine what are and 
what are not enemies, and to act accordingly ; 
or if I have entirely misjudged as to the real 
character of the institution itself; then I de¬ 
sire to drop the discussion, for I have no wish 
to agitate this or any other question merely for 
the sake of the excitement growing out of such 
agitation. But this question is upon us in all 
its length, breadth, and overwhelming magni- 





10 


tude. I desire to have it settled, and settled 
forever. I stand here not acting simply for 
myself or for a living constituency. I am the 
trustee of unborn millions, and I try to recog¬ 
nise fully the weighty and solemn responsibility 
of the trust. I want to know whether I live 
and whether my children are to live under 
a sovereignty or not; whether that sovereignty 
is competent to protect its loyal citizens from 
insult and outrage wherever its glorious flag 
waves ; whether, when the organic law declares 
the preservation of its own unity and the do¬ 
mestic tranquillity of the nation to be the ob¬ 
jects of its creation, the condition of its exist¬ 
ence, I have a right to inquire what enemy has 
destroyed both unity and tranquillity, and 
whether, in my action here, I have a right to 
deal with that enemy as with all other enemies. 
If this nation is to be a mere province, to be 
controlled by States and State institutions ; if 
enemies can grow up i^i our midst, too power¬ 
ful or too sacred to be touched ; if the Consti¬ 
tution was really intended by its authors to 
commit suicide in the day of its trial, and ac¬ 
knowledge that an enemy to its own unity, a vio¬ 
lator of natural justice, a persistent disturber 
of the domestic tranquillity, a foe to the public 
welfare, and a destroyer of the peoples’ liber¬ 
ties, may hold sway perpetually without the 
power of self-defence ; if the bald political ab¬ 
surdity of an imperium in imperio is not only 
to be tolerated, but allowed to “ cry havoc and 
let loose the dogs of war” upon the national 
life with impunity and without punishment, 
this great sovereignty had better at once go 
into bankruptcy or apply to probate for a guar¬ 
dian. 

But I may be asked, why do you not regard 
slavery now, as formerly, a local thing, which 
may be allowed to exist beyond the reach of 
the General Government? I reply, I must 
judge a tree by its fruit: this rebellion is the 
ripened fruit of slavery. I may live for years 
by the side of a neighbor of whose vicious tem¬ 
per I may be well aware, and from whom I 
may expect some fearful development in crime, 
but I may treat him all the while as a neigh¬ 
bor; certainly may not touch him as a criminal. 
His evil disposition may, however, lead him 
with malice aforethought to take the life of his 
fellow. Ami expected to treat him, after the 
overt act, just as I did before? Does the law 
treat him just as it did before ? This rebellion 
is the overt act of slavery. You may as well 
ask me to regard with like complacency the 
quiet house cur sleeping at my feet, and the 
same animal ranging the streets as a slobber¬ 
ing mad dog. This rebellion is slavery run 
mad, and God never ordained but one cure for 
hydrophobia, and that is death. 

It may also be urged that Government can 
only deal with individuals who are the guilty 
actors in the rebellion. While I deny utterly 
the propriety of strait jackets for a sovereignty 
struggling for its own existence, I desire to say 


most emphatically that the individual actors in 
this scene ought to be dealt with with unspar¬ 
ing severity. 

When it pleased the Almighty first to establish 
a constitutional government on earth, when he 
had given the race an organic law, and had 
organized the nation of His choice under “ stat¬ 
utes and ordinances,” and had by His own elec¬ 
tion designated their rulers and leaders, He was 
met in His wise and beneficent designs almost 
at the outset of the enterprise with a most de¬ 
termined and formidable rebellion. “ Two hun¬ 
dred and fifty of the princes of Israel, famous 
in the congregation, men of renown,” with 
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram at their head, de¬ 
clared that they would not submit to the Lord’s 
election of leaders. “ They gathered themselves 
together against Moses and against Aaron.” 
The issue was fairly made between the consti¬ 
tuted authorities and the rebels. Moses placed 
the matter in the hands of the Lord, and thus 
we have an instructive lesson as to how He put 
down a rebellion. Did he argue the right of 
coercion with them ? Did he spend breath in 
offers of compromise ? Did he send after them 
a gospel of peace and conciliation ? No, sir ; 
he sent them quickly down to hell, and passed 
a general confiscation act, by the prompt exe¬ 
cution of which they and “ their men, their 
goods, and everything that pertained to them,” 
“ went down alive into the pit, and the earth 
closed upon them, and they perished from 
among the congregationthus affording a ter¬ 
rific testimony of Almighty God against a 
causeless rebellion. 

I have thus briefly examined the first and 
second general propositions proposed in the 
outset, namely, that Congress, as the nation’s 
sovereignty, has a right to destroy enemies of 
the national life; that slavery is such an ene¬ 
my—which brings me to the conclusion that it 
is, therefore, the right and duty of Congress to 
destroy slavery. 

It is one thing to have power; it is quite 
another thing to exercise that power. If the 
power exists, there is a corresponding duty and 
obligation. And this brings us at once to 
grapple with the great practical issues of eman¬ 
cipation. It is impossible for me in the few 
minutes allotted to speak of plans or details— 
to discuss gradualism, or immediateism, or col¬ 
onization ; and I can only remark generally that 
the inquiry opens widely the door of expediency 
in connection with correct principles ; brings at 
once to our most careful consideration the re¬ 
sults of so great a change in the condition of 
one of the mighty laboring forces of the Dation; 
suggests the utmost forbearance towards all 
interested ; demands protection and regulation 
for the weak, and true conservative regard for 
the property and commercial interests involved. 
A more delicate, complicated, and important 
task has seldom been committed to mortal 
hands, and yet I am not ready to admit that it 
cannot be done; I am not willing to suppose 





11 


that Providence and the Anglo-American race, 
after having accomplished so many wonders, 
are to be stalled by a handful of negroes. 

When summary vengeance has been visited 
upon the heads of the reprobate leaders, and 
the rightful authority of this Government es¬ 
tablished over every foot of its territory, then 
the objects of this war are accomplished and it 
ought to end. I so voted on the 22d of July 
last. I never intended that this war should be 
prosecuted for the purpose of abolishing slavery. 
If emancipation does result from the war, it will 
be because the war is the eruption of the hith¬ 
erto slumbering volcano ; it will be because the 
war is a compendium of reasons against the sys¬ 
tem ; because the booming reports from the 
stolen ordnance of secession have aroused the 
nation to grapple with its deadliest foe, and 
assert the right of self-defence, a right never 
before denied to any being that has a right to 
live. 

I claim that this nation has a right to live ; 
that it has a right to resort to every means of 
self-defence necessary to self-preservation. That 
if, in the judgment of Congress, slavery is a 
public enemy, (and if it is not, I do not want to 
touch it,) it may and ought to be dealt with at any 
time as such. And I say that it is an absurd 
ity to hold that a question of self-preservation 
can only be considered in time of war, and set¬ 
tled only by the war-power. Emancipation 
should be an assertion, not to be mistaken and 
never to be forgotten, of the right of the sover¬ 
eignty to take care of itself, to deal summarily 
with it3 own enemies, and to provide for its own 
tranquillity, defence, and welfare. If resistance 
is made to laws of emancipation, it will be 
made at the peril of the law-breaker. 

While I have no doubt' of the right to confis¬ 
cate the property of rebels, and to liberate their 
slaves, and will vote for such a proposition, if 
nothing better can be done, yet this liberation 
by the war power may be partial, does not ne¬ 
cessarily abolish the system, and must necessa¬ 
rily neglect the important practical details so 
necessary to the well-being of all parties. Nor 
do I believe the territorial theory to be correct, 
so far as it is intended to be used for the pur¬ 
pose of emancipation; for if it be true that 
those States have really committed suicide, and 
are dead, then their local laws and institutions 
are also dead, and the Constitution necessarily 
prevails all over the territory, acting directly 
upon all the inhabitants. And whenever the 
sweet and heavenly breath of the Constitution 
shall pass through the lungs of a slave he will 
be free, like the “ Spirit of the Lord in the val¬ 
ley of dry bones,” proclaiming, “ Come from the 
four winds, 0 breath, and breathe upon these 
slain, that they may live.” You want no addi¬ 
tional enactment, no political formula, to de¬ 
termine the status of all “the inhabitants of 
the land.” If, however, the theory be correct 
that their State existence remains in duress, to 
be disenthralled by acts of returning loyalty, I 


would still have the voice of CongresSj like an 
archangel’s trumpet on a legitimate errand of 
resurrection, bid the dry bones of a withering 
and accursed despotism to live, and rescue the 
most glorious of earth’s nationalities from a 
premature grave. 

Sir, I stand here as a conservative man, with 
conservative instincts, interests, and purposes. 
I desire first of all to conserve the life, unity, 
and permanent tranquillity of this nation. I 
desire to conserve those great principles of 
personal liberty which have been winnowed out 
of the chaff of six centuries, and are garnered 
up in the Constitution of the United States, 
not for ourselves and our children merely, but 
for all future generations of men. As I view 
this matter, I would as soon think of allowing 
a nest of vipers to live in the cradle of my chil¬ 
dren as to permit this system of slavery longer 
to exist in this country. According to my con¬ 
servatism, it is simply a question between the 
children and the snakes. But I do not want to 
abate one nuisance and set up another iu its 
place. I do not want slave insurrections. I 
do not want midnight alarms, or hearthstones 
soiled with family blood. I do not want a 
wandering vagrancy of free blacks, or a promis¬ 
cuous amalgamation of races. We have had 
enough of all this ; and it is because I desire to 
avoid these evils that I insist upon the right 
and duty of the General Government to take 
this whole question into its own hands, and 
deal with it in a business-like, practical, con¬ 
servative manner. Here is the true field for 
conservatism to do its work in. 

The objection has been urged upon this'floor 
that an act of liberation would “ Africanize 
southern society.” Sir, I am not willing to 
suppose that “southern society” is so feeble a 
structure that it will be jostled from its position 
by an act of justice done to an inferior class. 
It does not follow that because you pay a man 
for a day’s work you are obliged to sleep in the 
same bed with him. It does not follow that 
because you make the hovel of the slave “ his 
castle” for purposes of protection, that he is to 
spend his time sitting in your parlor. It does 
not follow that because you secure him in en¬ 
joying the society of his own family, that his 
family and yours are to be compounded into 
one social circle. It does not follow that be¬ 
cause you give him the rights ctf manhood, he 
is to become an idle pilfering vagrant, free 
from the restraints of law and order. 

But there is another view of the subject 
forced upon our attention by the state of things 
with which we are already surrounded. You 
may deny the fact or ignore it, but the inexo¬ 
rable logic of events is daily demonstrating 
that slavery never can be hereafter the same as 
hitherto. This war, before it ends, will have 
totally demoralized the system and rendered it 
more dangerous to social security, and far less 
profitable and efficient as a producing force. 
It is every day teaching the slaves practical 



lessons of liberty, and practical lessons of the 
efficiency and power of physical force. All 
the slumbering energies of “ love for liberty” 
will be evoked from the darkened recesses of 
the heart of a degraded and downtrodden peo¬ 
ple. The Almighty never fastened such a mo¬ 
tor to the human race as this innate, ineradi¬ 
cable “love for liberty.” You may sneer at it 
or scold about it as you please, but it has done 
more for human progress, has carried the race 
up steeper grades, around sharper curves, over 
rougher tracks, and on the whole with greater 
speed and safety, than all other purely human- 
forces combined, and if I may be permitted to 
guess about the future, it will be found that the 
great Conductor of human affairs will have 
hitched that locomotive to the four millions of < 
slaves; and the question now is, will you, as j 
the proper and appointed guardians, take 
charge of the train and run it safely and 
smoothly over the nation’s future highway of 
prosperity, or will you permit it to ruu as a 
wild train, without lights, signals, brakemen, 
or engineers? True conservatism points to the 
General Government as the only proper and 
competent authority to save us in future from 
such fearful collisions, disaster, and ruin. 

By acts of Congress already passed, many 
thousands of slaves all over the slave States 
are entitled to their freedom. You have already 
initiated disintegration and destruction to the 
system. You have already set fire to the end 
of the fuse, and sooner or later the explosion 
will carry desolation and ruin unless the con¬ 
servative power of Congress is interposed prop¬ 
erly to direct and control the elements. If fire 
hundred thousand slaves—a3 has been stated 
on this floor—are already set free by acts on 
your statute-book, can it be supposed that the 
remainder will continue in bondage with the 
same docility as before ? No one would deny 
the power of the Federal Government to sup¬ 
press a slave insurrection. Is it any the less 
their duty to prevent one ? 

Sir, the only path of safety is in doing just 
what the Coustitution set out to do, just what 
your fathers pledged the world should be done 
—“establish justice” and “secure liberty” 
throughout the land. Then the unity, tranquil 
lity, and welfare of the nation will be secured 
and made permanent. 

I reiterate the words used by the honorable 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] 


in the preamble to his bill now under consid¬ 
eration—“slavery has caused the present re¬ 
bellion, and there can be no permanent peace 
and union in this Republic so long as that in¬ 
stitution exists.” Everybody knows this to be 
true. Our people understand it. Foreign na¬ 
tions know it. The civilized world have their 
searching eye upon us, to see whether we have 
the firmness and wisdom to manage this mighty 
subject. Shall we occupy the ridiculous posi¬ 
tion of having wellnigh exausted the blood and 
treasure of the nation to suppress a rebellion, 
and heave the admitted cause of it untouched? 
Shall we quail before threatened party organi¬ 
zations, yield to fierce denunciations, or be 
misled by predictions of wonderful social evils 
to result from emancipation ? The nation, sir, 
has been led astray quite long enough with the 
miserable partisau war cry that emancipation 
means “to turn the niggers loose.” Why, sir, 
I would not turn four millions of “ Yankees” 
loose and allow them to do as they please. .1 
do not know that anybody or anything in this 
country is turned quite loose, except it is this 
system of slavery; and I pray most earnestly 
that “ the strong and mighty angel, having a 
great chain in his hand,” may hasten to lay 
hold of that devil and turn upon him the key 
of the bottomless pit. One would suppose, lis¬ 
tending to the clamor on this subject, that 
emancipation was like the turning loose of the 
four Euphratean angels, who, under the symbol 
of two hundred thousand thousand horsemen, 
whose horses had heads like lions and tails like 
serpents, breathing from their mouths fire, 
smoke, and brimstone, were sent forth to “ de¬ 
stroy the third part of men.” Emancipation 
never has been and never will be sent forth on 
any such errand. No; it is rather an echo of 
that sweet song which once ravished human 
ears when the angel choir announced the ad¬ 
vent of earth’s great Emancipator, with the 
shout of “ glory to God in the highest, and on 
earth peace and good will toward men.” It is 
rather a “tree standing by the river of life, 
whose leaves are for the healing of the nations.” 
It is rather a harbinger and sure precursor of 
that happy period when— 

“ The desert shall blossom and the barren sing ; 

When justice and mercy, holiness and lov-e, 

Shall among the people walk, Messiah reign, 

And earth keep Jubilee a thousand years.” 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


































